Talk:Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Self immolation image

I think the current infobox image should be replaced with another image that shows the embassy gate as it is disturbing and inappropriate for most viewers. 2405:9800:B900:AD5B:7936:BAE6:2BFD:18D (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hm. If possible, there can be a spoiler feature that blurs the image and has a warning? But yes, we can change the visible photo to the Embassy Gate for disturbing content reasons. TigersTacos (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 14:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

As Davest3r08 mentioned, Wikipedia is not censored, nor do we blur and add warnings to useful images for "disturbing content reasons." If you find the image objectionable, you may hide it for your own view. Please see Help:Options to hide an image. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It is true we are NOTCENSORED. However, we are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper or sensationalist website. The question is, does the image add substantial encyclopedic value to the article or is its purpose primarily to shock or appeal to the emotions of the reader? I am dubious and note that in general it is extremely rare (though not unknown) for us to post graphic images of violence or traumatic injuries being inflicted on somebody. See also WP:DUE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Since this article is titled "Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell," it seems reasonable to include what the title is describing. If a different article is created simply titled "Aaron Bushnell" (not likely, but we'll see), then a simple portrait would suffice. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles that deal with notable crimes or incidents involving traumatic injuries being inflicted on people. Again, it is fairly rare for us to include such images. Just because an image relates to a subject doesn't mean it should get in the article. This strikes me as UNDUE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Most of the time the images are not as notable as the event itself, here, one of the things that makes it notable is the fact that it was live streamed on Twitch. An image helps impart what Twitch viewers were exposed to. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The New Yorker leads their article with stills from the video, including this image. Newsweek uses it in an article as well. I dont see what is the basis for UNDUE here, it is an image that is very obviously related to the subject of the article and an image used in reliable sources as well. nableezy - 19:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The image is not particularly graphic, especially when compared to other images of self immolation on this website. Furthermore, one of the things that makes it so notable is the fact that it was livestreamed, hence a screengrab of the livestream is appropriate and adds encyclopedic value. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

This isnt a graphic image, and it is not sensationalist, and it is very obvious to me that it does indeed add encyclopedic value to the article as it is an image of the topic of the article. Like ARandomName123, I think if this were a biography then it wouldnt be appropriate, but it is an article on the event and like say My Lai massacre or Tank Man or Burr–Hamilton duel there should be an image of the event. nableezy - 19:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I am dubious but can see that I'm also clearly in the minority here so I will defer to CONSENSUS pending anyone else chiming in on the matter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Ad Orientem on this; per WP:IMGCONTENT, the purpose of an image is to increase a readers understanding, not to shock or to bring attention to the article.

This photo does the latter, not the former - given that its inclusion is not the status quo I’ve removed it pending a formal consensus on its inclusion, although I would encourage editors to add an image of him in front of the gate prior to setting himself on fire - one should be available under the same free use justification as this image, although it may require someone willing to watch and screen capture a still from the twitch stream. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It's inclusion was the status quo. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

This is an article about the self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell, not the Israeli Embassy in Washington or a biography Aaron Bushnell. If anything, we are lucky enough to have a photograph of the SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE, so why would the image be changed? It's like changing the image for United States Congress from its seal to the Capitol Building. Seems like plain censorship too me. Should the sexual acts depicted on the relevant pages also be removed due to them being obscene, just because you are offended by them and you're the main character apparently?. Fluffy89502 (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The image here better meets the requirements of WP:IMGCONTENT; it is equally informing without being gratuitous. Switching the current image out for it would appear to address your concerns. BilledMammal (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It is not equally informing, one is of a US airman just standing and the other is the actual event that the article is based on. Also how can you just claim "oh the status quo is no image" when that image has been on the article for nearly the entire length of the article being in existence. Also I don't thing a low resolution image is "gratuitous." LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The image has been in the article for 32 hours. There is no definition of "status quo" that includes that.

And it’s the airman moments before he sets himself on fire; we don’t need him on fire to depict and inform about the event. BilledMammal (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Self-immolation is the act of setting oneself in fire. Why would we use an image of a random guy just cluelessly standing in front of the Israeli embassy? 2804:14D:5C32:4673:D9FB:F8FD:FB91:A51F (talk) 00:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does not show the topic of this article, that being the self-immolation of Bushnell. It shows something before that. And as such it is less informative. nableezy - 00:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that the event occurred so recently 32 hours is significant. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment So far 5 editors support including the image of the airman as the infobox image, and 4 are against. Did I count right? (This is not a vote). Ben Azura (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

There's a few more threads about this further up. #Infobox image and #Picture of Self-Immolation?. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Non-extended-confirmed editors cannot participate in discussions about this, only make edit requests, so you can take any IP out. As far as I can tell, it is just BilledMammal and Ad Orientem who has made any argument against using the current infobox image. I still do not understand what the reason why Ad Orientem thinks it is a DUE issue, and BilledMammal has merely made an assertion, without supporting it at all, that this image is supposedly gratuitous. nableezy - 00:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I also support the inclusion of the image. Wikipedia is not censored, and decision to include or remove content aren't made by counting votes, but by assessing the quality of the arguments made for doing so. Simply stating that the image is "inappropriate" doesn't mean anything; it's just an expression of personal preference. Cortador (talk) 18:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't support the inclusion of the image. I agree with Ad Orientem on this, the image does not add encyclopedic value but instead makes Wikipedia look like some kind of sensationalist website. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I've opened an RfC and reinstated the status quo pending the result of the RfC. BilledMammal (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus for inclusion of this image, you cant just demand your position be the status quo, sorry. Your removal also looks like a 1RR violation. I restored the image. edit: looks like you were a few hours off from the 1RR, but that is still edit warring against what was a clear consensus. nableezy - 12:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The image has been removed half a dozen times since it was first added approximately 48 hours ago; I'm not sure how you can claim that its inclusion is the status quo.

It wasn't a WP:1RR violation; it was my first edit in over 24 hours. I think this is the second time in a relatively short span of time that you have mistakenly alleged that I've violated 1RR; in the future, if you think I have committed a WP:1RR violation please come to my talk page and present diffs of the edits you believe are violations. BilledMammal (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am wrong about the 1RR. Regardless, there was a clear consensus for inclusion here and you edit-warring to remove it is still edit-warring. nableezy - 12:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

“Political statements”

Could the “political statements” section in this article be removed or completely rewritten? It only provides two supposed “political statements” — both of which are reddit posts from an account that might be his. I wouldn’t consider those cherry-picked posts on reddit to be “political statements”. Additionally, the use scare-quotes bring the neutrality of the section into question and make it seem particularly biased.

If not removed, could the section be rewritten to be more neutral and include more “political statements” made from that account? Medicationhaver (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think they should have its own section at all but be merged into the Background section if this info is ever justified. I also think that the sources should be attributed because they are apparently op-eds. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, if we trust the Reddit post quoted by Yayapro, a non extended-confirmed user, was indeed written by Bushnell himself, the original edit by user:Nihlus1 seriously took Bushnell's message out of context.[1] Bushnell did not make any excuse to justify the Re'im music festival massacre. I haven't subscribed to Washington Post and I can't really check the op-ed myself, but its removal by user:StarkReport should not be treated as a 1RR.[2] -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

For some more context, the opinion piece (archived here[3]) they cited does not even include the word “settlers”. The line that had that citation attached specifically had “settlers” in scare-quotes. And like you said, he did not “justify the Re'im music festival massacre”.

He is also still misquoted in the article. He did not say “there are no Israeli civilians”, which is in the article and implies citizens of Israel do not exist. He opined on reddit “There are no Israeli “civilians” or tourists who have no part in the oppression of Palestine,“[4] a much different meaning. “There are no Israeli civilians who have no part in the oppression of Palestine” became “There are no Israeli civilians” — a complete misrepresentation of his post. Medicationhaver (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The quotes around civilians changes the meaning (There are no Israeli "civilians"); if they were absent you would be right, but given their presence I think the interpretation of the source is correct - and I don't think we should be changing content away from a source on the basis of our own interpretation of a primary source. BilledMammal (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Though he does place quotation marks around "civilians" which indicates his belief of this, that does not mean he outright said "there are no Israeli citizens" and claiming he did so would be misinformation. It's fine to mention him not believing in the existence of 'Israeli citizens' but don't take that away from the focal point of what he said: "... that are not involved in the oppression of Palestine." Leaving this out matters quite a lot, doing so would be massively misconstruing it. B3251 (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I was the one who added the quotes around "civilians", on the basis that the Intercept source we're using (link) also added quotes around "civilians". LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 13:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

That's fine, but it's additionally worth noting that sources like The Intercept are quite biased with the way they want the reader to interpret the comment, which is why, upon taking a quick glance at the actual Reddit comment, you can tell that it's completely mischaracterized. Changing [There are no Israeli “civilians” or tourists who have no part in the oppression of Palestine] to just [the comment denied that Israeli citizens exist] or anything along those lines is a large misinterpretation of the whole comment and, whether done purposefully or not by the media article, should be taken into account. I'd consider it borderline misinformation at that point, but to each their own. Either way, leaving out the "... that are not involved in the oppression of Palestine" part of his comment is quite a huge deal due to its significance in the comment itself. B3251 (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for addition of uncensored self-immolation video

Aaron Bushnell live streamed and archived video of his final moments on Twitch, including his political statement and self-immolation. The uncensored video has been uploaded but quickly removed from several social media platforms, and has not been shown on mass media to my knowledge. However, the video has also been uploaded on some independently operated websites, where it is available to watch and download freely. On the website below, which is operated by the Oneness Foundation, there is a 40 MB version of the video. I propose that this video be added to the article, with the subtitle "Content Warning: Uncensored self-immolation video."

<redacted link> Wandering Westerner (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. The immediate technical issue is the lack of free licensing of the source video. Per our Wikipedia:Non-free content policy, we can only host non-free content at its minimal possible form, in this case, a downsized single capture of the source video. If you can provide us a source video which has been declared to be released into either the public domain or Creative Commons, you are free to upload it to Wikimedia Commons (which allows the file to be used across all Wikimedia sister projects including Wikipedia) with proper licensing information. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Im removing the link as that is a copyright violation. nableezy - 05:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why did you delete the link? There are at least seven links in the References section of the article that show clips of the video up to a minute long, without any indication of whether they have licensed the copyright to the video. Wandering Westerner (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC) The original link does not appear to be from a reliable source. We have strict rules on what kind of link we can provide in our articles. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 08:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC) That is not an answer to my question, and I do not believe that is the real reason that Wikipedia editors refuse to add the uncensored video. Aaron Bushnell live streamed and archived the video of his own self-immolation protest on Twitch. Clearly his intent was for his video to reach as wide of an audience as possible in the public domain. But Bushnell's channel LillyAnarKitty was quickly removed by Twitch, and most reposts of his video have also been removed from social media. Even after the journalist Talia Jane claimed to have the consent of Bushnell's bereaved family to post a blurred version of the video on X, almost all media outlets that repost the video omit the portion of the video in which Bushnell is fully engulfed in flame. Bushnell made a political protest of some historical importance, but the vast majority of platforms are censoring his act of political protest to reduce shock value, including Wikipedia which has this article that turns up at the top of my Google search results for "Aaron Bushnell". If I cannot get you to see the error of your ways then I will contact Bushnell's family directly and request their permission to post the full uncensored version of the video. Wandering Westerner (talk) 08:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC) If Bushnell's family members or friends possess the unedited version of the video and are willing to publish the video under Creative Commons license or into the public domain, you are again welcome to upload it to Wikimedia Commons. The copyright issue is what preventing us from hosting the media file. Wikipedia, as well as Wikimedia, is uncensored, so I can guarantee you that the unedited video would not be deleted because it's "objectionable". -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

"to ensure the safety of 2 people trying to put out the fire"

Can someone remove that baseless speculation?

The man was pointing a gun at him because he was a complete goon.

He even got yelled at by one of the responders. Dont white wash him 104.178.85.51 (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The claim is supported by a Newsweek "fact check" source, but the current phrasing creates a chronological awkwardness in the article lead. The whole "while one Secret Service officer pointed a gun at him to ensure the safety of two others who were attempting to extinguish him" sentence should be removed as it would connect better with the following paragraph. I am not going to edit it because the one responsible for this sentence is falsely accusing me violation of 1RR. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I changed the phrasing to be more neutral. The source that said the officer was ensuring the safety was from Newsweek, which is considered to not be a reliable source from 2013 onward. See WP:NEWSWEEK. GranCavallo (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

From the point of due weight, that gun pointing secret service isn't really that important for the article lead. As you have already mentioned, it is not supported by a quality source ie Newsweek. And then there is a chronological disarray in the article lead. Personnel responding to Bushnell are mentioned twice in the lead. Also Bushnell was declared dead the same day, not the following day. (Even though the death declaration cites Newsweek too, that one is much less contentious than the "ensure the safety" claim.) All in all, the article lead requires some thorough c/e instead of bandaid fixes. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 18:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Praised ?

In the paragraph about US reaction it lists a number of people who "praised" his action. Can we have some kind of references for that, please, as we have for Bernie's reaction. IceDragon64 (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Here are some sources I could find through a quick Google search.

Mentions just Cornel's praise: https://www.newsweek.com/cornwell-west-praises-aaron-bushnell-pro-palestinian-self-immolation-1873973

Mentions praise from Jill, Cornel, and the DSA: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/presidential-candidates-activists-praise-sacrifice-us-airman-burned-alive-protest-israel

Mentions praise from Jill, Cornel, and Aya: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-789166

Mentions praise from Jill, Aya, Dyab, and 2 other non-notable people (journalist Caitlin Johnstone and human rights lawyer Mai El-Sadany): https://www.newsweek.com/aaron-bushnell-called-hero-pro-palestinian-self-immolation-1873454 ZionniThePeruser (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

and... now I realize nearly all of those sources either aren't considered WP:RS according to WP:RSP and/or considered WP:RSOPINION. Great. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Change time to match local time and add date

In the 4th or 5th paragraph it states that "His death was declared at 20:06 by the doctor." in 24-hour time format and also does not include the date in the same sentence that the time is stated, which could cause confusion. It also conflicts with the earlier format for time, which states "On February 25, 2024, at approximately 12:58 p.m. local time". Basically, if it could be changed to "His death was declared at 8:06 p.m. local time on February 25, 2024." or something similar in order to remove possible confusion. StringCheeseIsMyNameMyCriminalArrestBroughtMeFame (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Apparent mockery by the Israeli security service

I was wondering why the viral video "that seemed to show Israeli security service Mossad mocking the airman" [5] is not covered here. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

From the article: "The Israeli secret service agency, Mossad, did not publish a social media post celebrating the U.S. airman Aaron Bushnell setting himself on fire outside the U.S. embassy. The post came from a bogus Mossad account which has published misleading and bogus content throughout the conflict between Israel and Hamas." LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

"The posts quoted on social media were not from Mossad." From the article. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 20:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@HadesTTW and LegalSmeagolian: I am not talking about the fake post on social media. The mockery videos themselves, regardless of whom they are, have not been rebutted AFAIK. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah OK, there is no such video, only a fake post. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2024

Change "perceived Palestinian genocide" to either "Palestinian genocide" OR "American backing of Israeli actions in Gaza". "Perceived" is editorialized and not impartial sounding, it sounds like he was mistaken in his belief. NotQualified (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Thank you for your contribution! However, I did not make the requested edit because "perceived" does not imply that he was mistaken. Rather, it simply states that he believed that Israel is committing genocide. That belief is not a universally accepted fact; as there is still significant controversy as to whether or not Israel's actions constitute genocide, it would be a violation of our neutral point of view policy to call the actions genocide. It is unambiguously true, however, that Bushnell perceived them as genocide. Saying only "American backing of Israeli actions in Gaza" would not give enough emphasis to his perception that the actions are genocide. Luke10.27 (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2024 (2)

On the paragraph starting with "Following his self-immolation, Bushnell's actions were praised by..." remove mention of activist Dyab Abou Jahjah, as I could only find one article mentioning his praising of Aaron's actions, with said article being from WP:NEWSWEEK. (If someone finds another article from a WP:RS mentioning him, I'll strike this out.)

As well, add this article from The New Arab as a citation for Jill Stein and Cornel West's praise, alongside this article from Diario AS as a citation for Aya Hijazi's praise, as such statements have been challenged by User:IceDragon64.

ZionniThePeruser (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources for Twitch username

I noticed that the existing source given for Aaron using the Twitch username "LillyAnarKitty", from Mediaite, makes no mention of a Twitch username in the text as far as I can tell, either in the current or archived version. This was concerning me since it has led to some amount of online speculation around Aaron's gender identity, this being a very stereotypical transfeminine leftist online username, so I thought it was important to ensure it was true.

While looking in to this, I found two sources that mention it; one from CrimethInc, the anarchist group that claims to have received a sort of manifesto/suicide note, and one from the Western Journal, a right wing outlet which has received criticism for its accuracy in the past. I am not sure whether the former constitutes a primary source, hence my adding of the latter. Additionally, should we keep the Mediaite reference, which as far as I can tell doesn't contain any otherwise uncited claims?

Thanks for any feedback/advice people may have on these - also, you are encouraged to edit my citations, I am not at all confident I did them correctly, since I'm not very experienced with making citations. Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 16:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Citation looks fine. Worth noting that The Western Journal is generally unreliable but not deprecated per WP:RSP. _Dial^mayo 13:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Add alleged direct United States involvement in killings to article

[6] The US has been alleged to have directly deployed troops in Gaza involved in massacres against Palestinians. I would mention this on the main Israel-Hamas war article but the talk page is protected. I would suggest adding something like
United States (alleged direct involvement)
below Israel in the infobox. Bill3602 (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I would oppose any mention of such claims in the absence of strong evidence from reliable secondary sources per WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It's at least worthy of mention on the Aaron Bushnell article if not the main one, no?--Bill3602 (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

We do not permit Wikipedia to be used for the promotion of fringe conspiracy theories. If the conspiracy theory is independently notable, that might be a different matter. Then it could be discussed along with reputable sources while adhering to DUE and mindful of PROFRINGE. Otherwise we generally steer clear of such claims. See the above linked policies and guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it can be mentioned in a way that does not imply Wikipedia is promoting the idea. Conspiracy theories are well-documented here after all.--Bill3602 (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Notable ones are covered. But every nutty conspiracy theory does not get to be mentioned. Again, see the linked policies and guidelines. To quote RedFlag: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

New York Post is indeed unreliable, but The Hill has also covered this story[7]. Admittedly I would wait for more reliable sources. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I mention this on this talk page as this is the closest relevant one to this topic.--Bill3602 (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Talia Jane (@taliaotg), who has been instrumental in reporting on Bushnell's protest and was the one who originally released the blurred video after discussions with his family, wrote that is unsupported: https://twitter.com/taliaotg/status/1762892495904518444?t=j23DUaNvU5Fl17HhmrfuPA&s=19

→ "Regarding a recent New York Post article claiming Aaron Bushnell had inside knowledge about U.S. forces in Gaza, I reached out to actual friends of his (not just an anon “pal” talking to a conservative rag) who stated Bushnell had not been working for the USAF for four months: “Aaron has not been doing his military job for like four months so there's no way he has had access to any intelligence. Also I don't think there being American troops on the ground in Gaza would be the thing to push him to do this. He had a strong enough analysis to recognize the US role regardless of whether or not there were literal Americans soldiers on the ground.” --91.54.18.159 (talk) 04:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a patently fringe conspiracy theory that has been making the rounds in some of the darker corners of the internet, but has received scant attention from mainstream reliable secondary sources. Mentioning it would be WP:UNDUE at the very least. It would also create serious NPOV issues per FRINGE and REDFLAG. The general rule is that when mentioning fringe theories that there must be a corresponding explanation of the theory from reliable sources explaining the mainstream position. Since this belief has received little more than the occasional passing mention in reliable sources, it's not possible to discuss it in an encyclopedic manner. Thus any mention would be highly problematic per all the policy and guidelines that I have linked above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

This is wikipedia, we dont traffick in conspiracy theories. This shouldnt even be a discussion. Googleguy007 (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Bushnell's another will

I previously added Bushnell's another will which cited TRT World[8] but got reverted for unreliable source.[9] Per past discussion, TRT World is not a deprecated source but requires editors to handle its articles with extra care. In this case I don't think citing its report about Bushnell's will would pose a COI issue with the Turkish government. Another less than ideal source for this info is Palestine Chronicle.[10] I am not asking for a complete restore of my previous edit, but this can be condensed to a brief mention of his wish to "scatter his ashes in a liberated Palestine" in the event section, after the "his cat be left with a neighbor after his death" sentence. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

If this is a notable aspect of the event, then reliable sources will report it. Right now, I don’t see a reason to include it. Zanahary (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Expansion tag for international reaction section

This tag which requests reactions from Israel has been added and removed multiple times so I am hesitant to engage directly, but my opinion is that it is very unlikely we would get any notable reaction from within Israel. If I were the Israeli authority, I would rather prefer both the admin and the general public not speaking openly about Bushnell, either positively or negatively. I believe it's rather futile to add this expansion tag to expect something very hard to come by in the first place, so it's better to remove it for now. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I have hidden the tag. It may be useful in the future. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Also @GranCavallo: Where is the source of your claim that "Israel did not acknowledge or address the incident."? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 21:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

That statement "Israel did not acknowledge or address the incident." is evident by the fact that Israel has not publicly acknowledged or addressed the incident. I have added the word "publicly" to the article as a clarification, as they have certainly acknowledged or addressed the incident privately. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please add it to the article, as it would be relevant information. GranCavallo (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the "citation needed" tag is a bit of a lost cause. No media outlet is going to write an article about how Israel has had no response to the incident, but I also reckon that the fact that the Israeli government did not respond in any way to the incident is encyclopedic enough- (and also I'm sure many readers would be curious if Israel had one).

So the options I can forsee are 1. keeping that factually true sentence in unsourced, which could constitute WP:OR, or 2. removing any mention of an Israeli response or lack of response. It's probably going to be removed, which would be a bummer, as I'm sure it's a tidbit worthy of inclusion.

HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

It would constitute OR. I think readers curious about an official Israel reaction would read the article and correctly note the lack of a mention of such a response to mean that there was none. Zanahary (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ben Azura: Even though Seth Frantzman is an American, if his op-ed is published by Jerusalem Post, perhaps we can count this is a view "supported" by Israeli media thus replacing the "Israel has not publicly acknowledged or addressed the incident" statement. What do you say? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes I'll remove it, there has been little response from foreign governments. I'm not expecting that to change. Ben Azura (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Just for the record: We actually have a response from the Israeli Consul-General in Atlanta, Anat Sultan-Dadon, immediately after Bushnell's news hit the headline. However, none of the reliable source covered her statement on Bushnell. Oops, wrong info. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC) 14:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? The only statement from her that I am seeing is from last year in regards to the Atlanta self-immolation. Some news articles about Bushnell are including it, but not making it clear that it is an old quote or that she is referring to the previous self-immolation. GranCavallo (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It was cited on Chinese Wikipedia and I removed it for unreliable source, but after carefully reading it again, apparently her statement was about the 2023 self-immolation in Atlanta, not Bushnell's.[11][12] -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Offwiki WP:CANVASSING

This page has become the target of WP:CANVASSING from reddit. I will edit the talk page to reflect this. The link is here: [13] Tdmurlock (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I thought we already established that a post simply pointing out something in an article isn't canvassing. Salmoonlight (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Cartoon

@BilledMammal: Very due actually considering analogies with Quang has been mentioned in coverage by the Washington Post, the Guardian, the Time, Jacobins; to name a few; which are all RS according to WP. [14], [15], [16], [17]. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Do they reference the cartoon? BilledMammal (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: WP:UNDUE deals with viewpoints. This is a significant viewpoint as demonstrated above. Whether the cartoon has been referenced or not is irrelevant. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the inclusion of the cartoon in accordance with Makeandtoss. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

By this argument we could include POV political cartoons in any article as long as they represent a viewpoint covered in the article. I think having non-notable political cartoons is clearly in violation of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Zanahary (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with the inclusion of the cartoon. GranCavallo (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Death Toll?

Hey, not here to debate numbers, but the bbc linked article in the intro specifically says 30,000 deaths, “as reported by the Gaza health ministry”. In this Wikipedia page, it just outright claims 30,000 deaths. I just don’t know if another line should be added “according to the Gaza health ministry”. I think that’s the most neutral way to make a positive change. DJ-Joker (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to the addition, as the real death toll might be higher, so specifying that it's from Gaza's own reporting does account for the possibility that the death count is under-exaggerated. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2024

The article should make clear that the Gaza health ministry is run by Hamas. This is an established fact, and confirmed by multiple media and government sources. I suggest the wording should be changed from: "which has killed over 30,000 Palestinians and resulted in a major humanitarian crisis" To: "which has - according to the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health - killed over 30,000 Palestinians and resulted in a major humanitarian crisis"

Sources: BBC - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68430925 BBC - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68581090 AP News - https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033 France 24 - https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240314-aid-ship-slowly-heads-for-gaza-as-calls-for-assistance-grow UK Government Research Briefing - https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9874/CBP-9874.pdf Endellelverdam (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This has been discussed multiple times on multiple articles, and will require discussion by extended confirmed editors on this article if that qualifier is to be included. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Vigil photos

A large number of photos are available for the 2/26 vigil mentioned in the article. I'm not sure which one might be the best fit for the article, but here is the link. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for finding those photos. I added one of them to the article in the Domestic Reactions section. GranCavallo (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I realized that I should explain why I chose the photo that I chose. I did so because it shows the gate where the immolation happened, it shows the embassy in the background to visually establish the location, and it does not show any close ups of an specific person's face. It is the overall most neutral depiction of the vigil from all of those photos. GranCavallo (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2024

The quote states "I will no longer be complicit to genocide". The sources say "I will no longer be complicit IN genocide" (emphasis mine). This is also more gramatically correct. Having watched the video in the sources I can confirm that it should be changed from TO to IN. Sgp10 (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. GranCavallo (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for addition under "reactions"

Crimethinc contacted his buddies in the army, and his words and history can be read under it. I think it's important to add this as it shows a connection to a wider belief system and motivation for his actions, as well as recounting their takes on his actions. He calls himself an anarchist, and others mention his background as in a cultish sect

It also takes the focus away from the media loops and more towards what he was trying to convey, which is what he wanted as well as more first-hand than other sources (including parents)

https://crimethinc.com/2024/02/29/memories-of-aaron-bushnell-as-recounted-by-his-friends

95.193.152.29 (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

CrimethInc. is not an individual person and is not a reliable source EvergreenFir (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2024

5.216.9.164 (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Amortias (T)(C) 22:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

New York Post

@Ben Azura: Regarding this edit [18], please remove the citation of New York Post (Aaron Bushnell's self-immolation sparks Pentagon inquiry from Tom Cotton on how he was 'allowed to serve') because it is not a reliable source per WP:NYPOST. The Intercept source alone already suffices as it is a reliable source. The only reason I don't do it myself is due to the 1RR regulation. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Ben Azura (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal of the misinformation section

This doesn't seem to warrant an entire section. I don't see much encyclopedic value to some random troll post, nor any reason to add it into this article. Maybe it can be integrated into some other part of the article? DarmaniLink (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant opinion insert?

"A friend of Bushnell named Lupe Barboza said in an interview with Al Jazeera that Bushnell was religious and anti-imperialistic, but that she did not think that Bushnell was mentally ill."

This statement is made under the section about his personal views, and nowhere in this section is it mentioned that Bushnell was mentally ill or that others thought he was. I'm confused as to why this part was added here.

Vixtani (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning Bushnell opinion that Israel doesn't have a right to exist

@Parabolist

I see that you object to mentioning Bushnell's opinion that Israel has no right to exist on the section on his views. I don't understand why. The fact that he held this opinion is clearly extremely relevant to the subject of the article, yet it has no mention in the current version. The current version only says that he said that Israel is "settler colonialist apartheid state", which might imply to the reader that Bushnell thought Israel doesn't have a right to exist, but not necessarily, whereas Bushnell in fact stated it explicitly. Vegan416 (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Why does it matter? We are already quoting two posts from the account attributed to Bushnell, and they both give the reader an overview of Bushnell's views, which is that he was opposed to Israel. The quote about Israel being an apartheid state is, actually, extremely relevant to the article, because it directly correlates to the stated intentions in the section below, giving a throughline between parts of the article. I do not think the specific quote you want to include does the same. If readers want to read all of Bushnell's reddit posts, they can make a few clicks. We're here to summarize information.Parabolist (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Parabolist

It matters because there is a huge difference between saying that "X was opposed to Israel" and saying that "X was opposed to Israel's existence". It is important for example for giving the correct context to Bushnell's last famous words. His last words were shouting the slogan "Free Palestine" over and over again. Now many people claim that the meaning of this slogan is just a support for a two state solution with a free Palestinian state beside Israel, which might be true for some of the people who use this slogan, but clearly is not true in the case of Bushnell.

In short I'm afraid I'm going to insist on including this information in the article, one way or another. Vegan416 (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

And I disagree. We can wait for others to chime in on exactly how many reddit posts, sourced to a single secondary source, we should include in this article. Parabolist (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Parabolist

1. Which point of mine do you disagree with? Do you think that there isn't a significant difference between saying that "X was opposed to Y" and saying that "X was opposed to Y's existence"???
2. I also completely disagree with your characterization of the dispute between us. The issue is not at all "how many reddit posts, sourced to a single secondary source, we should include in this article", since I don't suggest adding reference to any any new Reddit post, compared to what is already currently mentioned in the article. The issue in dispute is rather whether this article should or should not include the fact that Bushnell thought Israel has no right to exist.
3. And BTW if you seem to doubt the existence of these Reddit posts I can also reference them directly as the primary source for the quotes. The links are available.
4. In any case anybody is welcome to chime in. And if we cannot reach an agreement or compromise on this matter I'm ready to take it up all the way up to an arbitration committee if necessary :-)

Vegan416 (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the added quotation adds to the reader's understanding of Bushnell's views. I believe that what we currently quote is more than adequate to give the reader an understanding of that. I don't doubt the existence of the reddit account, but instead am pointing out that so far (to my knowledge) only the Intercept has reported in-depth on that account. This isn't to say it's not true, or that it doesn't bear inclusion, but that WP:DUE weight is something to consider with regards to how much detail we should go into. And finally, the Arbitration Committee doesn't settle minor content disputes. I don't know where you got that notion. Parabolist (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Parabolist

1. You say you "don't think the added quotation adds to the reader's understanding of Bushnell's views". So try to answer this question: Do you really think that 100% of the readers who will read the article as it is now, will understand from it that Bushnell was opposed to the very existence of Israel, and that when he shouted "Free Palestine" while dying he didn't mean "free Palestine" beside Israel, but rather "free Palestine" instead of Israel? If the answer is "no" then obviously the added quotation does add to the reader's understanding of Bushnell's views, contrary to your claim.
2. With regard to the WP:DUE of the reddit account, actually not only the Intercept reported on this account (and BTW it makes a very compelling case that this account was indeed operated by Bushnell). I have already brought (in the edit you reverted) the ADL reference to it as well (which specifically mentions the quote about Israel having no right to exist). And here are some more sources mentioning this account (some verifying its relation to Bushnell; some mentioning specifically the quote about Israel's lack of right to exist; some mentioning other controversial opinions he expressed there): https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aaron-bushnell-antisemitic-posts/ https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-791570 https://www.thejc.com/news/usa/hamas-praises-us-pilot-who-self-immolated-as-heroic-umomcs1e https://thefederalist.com/2024/02/29/how-did-the-anti-israel-guy-who-set-himself-on-fire-get-a-security-clearance/ (some of these sources are already appearing in the article in other contexts)
3. In any case, regardless of the WP:DUE of the reddit account itself, the issue here as I said is not the importance of the reddit account per se. Since we seem to agree that the reddit account does represent the views of Bushnell, then the only issue at dispute is whether the fact that Bushnell thought that Israel doesn't have a right to exist is important for understanding his views and what led him to his extreme action. And I think claiming that it isn't important is quite disingenuous.
4. I also don't think this will reach the Arbitration Committee. What I meant (somewhat tongue in cheek) is that I am willing to "fight" for this issue as far as is needed.

Vegan416 (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand the DUE here. I don't think that this distinction you're drawing between these definitions of "Free Palestine" you've come up with matters. I don't think drawing more weight to the reddit posts improves the article. We quote what we quote to understand that when Bushnell compares what's happening in Gaza to apartheid in the statements about his act, that these are held beliefs. You are inventing extra meaning to the phrase Free Palestine that I don't think exist. Free Palestine meant Free Palestine, in this context. You're the one adding the beside/instead distinction. But either way, we're clearly at an impasse, I only responded because you misunderstood my application of DUE here. It's about weight. Let's just wait for others to chime in. Parabolist (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Parabolist

You are evading my question. Let's try again in a simpler way: What do you think Bushnell meant when he said "Free Palestine" on his death? Did he mean that there should be free Palestine beside Israel or instead of Israel? Vegan416 (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not evading it, I'm telling you it doesn't matter. Unless we get a source that analyzes how what he secretly meant by 'Free Palestine' was actually 'Destroy Israel', we report that he said "Free Palestine". Your theory that there is somehow a secret meaning there is original research. Freedom for Palestine is freedom for Palestine, and not about his thoughts on the peace process, or Israeli statehood. You're drawing a connecting line here that I understand you feel is obvious, but it's not to me. Ceci n'est pas une pipe. Parabolist (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Parabolist

Ah, but you are a bit confused here. I never suggested that we report anything about his last words other than that he said "Free Palestine". What I do suggest is that we fully report on his views on this subject as expressed in the period before that, and let the readers decide for themselves what they make of it. You on the other hand seek to hide this most relevant piece of information from the readers. And I wonder why... Vegan416 (talk) 11:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Parabolist

1. Here is the last thing I'll say about it for a while (unless you respond, or someone else chimes in). Since we failed to convince each other of the correctness of our opinions I suggest that to get out of the impasse let's analyze this dispute from the perspective of "what is the damage done to the readers’ knowledge if I concede to the other side without giving up my opinion".
2. Your opinion is that the added quotation doesn’t “add to the reader's understanding of Bushnell's views” (your words), because you say that the existing quotes already “give the reader an overview of Bushnell's views” on this subject. My opinion is that the existing quotes do not give the reader a sufficient “overview of Bushnell's views” on this subject, and therefore my added words to the quotation do “add to the reader's understanding of Bushnell's views”.
3. Now, suppose I maintain that I am correct, but I agree to concede to you and agree to delete my edit. What damage is done to the reader’s knowledge from my point of view? A significant damage, because from my point of view the reader will miss an important relevant piece of knowledge about Bushnell’s views.
4. On the other hand, suppose you maintain that you are correct, but you agree to concede to me and approve my edit. What damage is done to the reader’s knowledge from your point of view? No damage at all. The only thing that will happen is that the reader will have to read 6 superfluous words (“It has no right to exist”) which according to your opinion he already knows to be a true representation of Bushnell’s view, because he somehow inferred this from the previous quotes.
5. I think this line of reasoning leads inevitably to the conclusion that you have to concede to me, regardless of what you think is the correct opinion in this dispute. Unless of course you have additional reasons to object to my edit, which you didn’t share with us so far.
6. In any case I’ll wait now for some reasonable time (say a week) to see if some compromise that we can both live with will surface here in this discussion, from you or someone else. If not, then in 7 days’ time I will raise this dispute to the next level. I see that the next options are requesting a third opinion (3O) or request for comment. I’m not sure which option is more suitable here.

Vegan416 (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps there's some confusion as to international law here. No state has a right to exist; peoples have a right to self-determination. Any talk of states and the right to exist is rhetorical speech of the allegorical/didactic variety. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree that adding the extra post wouldn't be a positive, and that it would be UNDUE at best DarmaniLink (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323

Your statement regarding international law is incorrect. But even if you were right it is completely irrelevant. The discussion here is not whether Bushnell was "morally" or "legally" right or wrong in his opinions. It is not for Wikipedia to decide on these issues. Rather, the question here is if Wikipedia should hide from the readers that he held these opinions, or not. Vegan416 (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

If it's not opinion, but fact then it's no more interesting than Bushnell saying that the sky is blue. If it's not a reference to anything established in law, the intellectual position is entirely philosophical. You also frame other editors as "hiding" things from the readers – a negative framing that implies you place equal importance on showing off this information. That in turn is an "irrelevant" judgment call on your part. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323

Of course it is an opinion and not a fact. The claim that "No state has a right to exist" is not a fact, because no moral statement is a fact, but rather an opinion. And in this case it is a moral opinion that most people dispute. Most people are of the opinion that states have a right to exist. And international law also holds the opinion that states have a right to exist, from which stem the right of states to defend themselves according to international law. Vegan416 (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The notion that states have the right to exist is not grounded in international law AFAIK, so the converse would appear to be legal fact. A state is just a governing political structure. Why should any given political structure have the right to exist? The notion of asserting absolutes in this context is arguably as absurd as suggesting that a king should rule because of divine right. It's a rhetorical flourish to state that something doesn't have a right to exist because it could be interpreted as conveying a sense of implied moral condemnation, but otherwise it's little more than a curiosity. "Most people are of the opinion that states have a right to exist. And international law also holds the opinion that states have a right to exist" – sources? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323

Well, you are wrong on both things. Most people do think that existing states have a right to continue existing (as long as their citizens want that), and international law also think so. And here are some sources as you asked:

Regarding the opinion of most people about the right of states to exist, and even specifically the right of Israel to exist, you can see for example in this polls

https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2016-05-01/ty-article/.premium/majority-of-brits-say-hating-israel-is-anti-semitism/0000017f-f6ff-d5bd-a17f-f6ff45a40000

https://transatlanticinstitute.org/analysis/denying-israels-right-exist-antisemitic

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/11/europe/antisemitism-poll-2018-intl/

Regarding international law see for example here

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2796206 Vegan416 (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

As you note, those are all opinions. If you think it is a part of international law, you should be able to point to the statute in which it is enshrined. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323

1. First of all, the fact that most people believe in the right of states to exist (and even specifically in the right of Israel to exist) is sufficient to make the fact that Bushnell thought otherwise noteworthy, especially in the context of his suicide and the reasons for it. This is clearly not the same as saying that he thought "the sky is blue", contrary to what you said before.
2. If you have bothered to actually read the scholarly legal article I brought, you would have seen that the right of states to exist is recognized within the customary international law which makes your request to a "statute in which it is enshrined" irrelevant.

Vegan416 (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure you read the paper either, because that's not what it says. It does say that there are no absolutes, as the former Yugoslavia could tell you. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

What are the sources mentioning this? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323

You are wrong. It does say that. See for example the first 3 sentences in the "Conclusion" chapter in page 18. Of course this "right to exist" is not absolute. No right in any legal system is absolute. Even the right for life for an individual human is not absolute, thus every legal system that I know of allows killing other persons in self defense, if there is no other way to defend yourself from them. But it doesn't mean that the right to live doesn't exist. And the same is true for the right of states to exist. Vegan416 (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

You've responded to the wrong comment. I was asking about the sources for Bushnell's comments. But anyway, you're still not reading the paper correctly. The paper says that the right to exist is implied by the principle of territorial integrity, which is the notion that other external forces shouldn't be permitted to steal territory – that is the thrust of the paper; nothing more. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323

1. But this is what I said from the beginning - "international law also holds the opinion that states have a right to exist, from which stem the right of states to defend themselves according to international law". I'm glad to see that finally you admit that this right appears in international law.
2. The sources that mention Bushnell's comments are many. I referred to some of them in the deleted edit. If you can't find it I'll repeat it here: Primary sources: https://archive.is/xHoIU#selection-1299.284-1299.463 https://archive.is/K5o3l#selection-1627.0-1627.94 https://archive.is/1kMms#selection-3391.0-3391.243 Secondary sources: https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/aaron-bushnell-reddit-fire-protest-israel-palestine/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aaron-bushnell-antisemitic-posts/ https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/anti-israel-activists-terrorist-organizations-hail-aaron-bushnell-martyr-after-self https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-791570 https://www.thejc.com/news/usa/hamas-praises-us-pilot-who-self-immolated-as-heroic-umomcs1e https://thefederalist.com/2024/02/29/how-did-the-anti-israel-guy-who-set-himself-on-fire-get-a-security-clearance/

Vegan416 (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

You've got it the wrong way around. That one paper merely says it's implied, by the principle of territorial integrity. That is all. That's very weak wording indeed. And again, just one legal opinion. Also, the two best sources above re: Bushnell, the Intercept and JC, do not mention the word "right" or "exist". So no, what you're attempting to peddle doesn't seem to have multiple RS behind it. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323

1. It appears that you don't understand the meaning of Customary International Law. Everything in there is "implied", since there are no "statutes" in this form of law. And the article I brought is definitely not the only one that proves my point about International Law. It's just the first one I picked at random. Here are some more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/31/should-israel-exist-palestine/ https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5567 https://books.google.co.il/books?id=xu-MDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT259
2. I'm not sure I understand what you are driving at regarding the sources for the comments. Are you trying to deny that Bushnell said these things???? I showed you the primary source for them from his own reddit account.

Vegan416 (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources establish no weight, so if you don't have multiple secondary sources establishing these things, there is no grounds for inclusion. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323

But I have multiple secondary sources. See here:

https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/anti-israel-activists-terrorist-organizations-hail-aaron-bushnell-martyr-after-self

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-791570 Vegan416 (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Both of those sources are highly partisan in the context, and the ADL is an increasingly problematic voice on the IP conflict in general. Note that it's also an ADL blog post, not a report or anything else more substantive. This doesn't really lend much weight to the specific quotation of the Reddit post. You could attribute either source for their characterisations. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323

Both are considered reliable secondary sources. The fact that they may be partisan according to your view doesn't matter with regard to weight, as we are not discussing here the verifiability of the claim (which is not disputed), but rather DUENESS. Vegan416 (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323

In any case I don't have any objection to write this quote in the attributed form. Vegan416 (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The quote is not something worth repeating based on two marginal sources. I said you could attribute their characterisation of Bushnell's views. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

These are not marginal sources. Especially not in this context. Vegan416 (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)